Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Campbell-Savours: I shall be brief and respond only to the major issues. I was asked by the noble
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1372
 
Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Chorley, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, why this should be limited to the national parks. I shall be absolutely frank. The answer to the question is that that is all I could gain support for among Labour Back Benchers in the other House. That is not a good answer, but it is the truth. If that is the reality we are faced with, we should take it seriously.

I was also asked about an inconsistency in my position. The answer is that it is simply impractical to use guns in the national parks. Again, I am forced to face that reality. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu again referred to her consistent approach on the question of licensing and registration. I understand that my noble friend feels passionately about it, but there is a big problem at the other end of the corridor. I am afraid that registration and licensing is not going to surface on the Commons agenda. We have to face that reality. It may be unpalatable to many Members of the Committee, but I repeat that that is the reality of the situation at the other end.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that we are not at the end of the road. I am sorry to say that we are at the end of the road. They know exactly what they want to do at the other end. I go down the corridor every day and mix with them, so I know what they are saying and how passionately they feel about this Bill. They are just as passionate as Members of this House. Again, if it is the case that we are nearly at the end of the road, this is the time to lay down markers.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the question of horses and where they could be ridden. I am afraid that it is very difficult to ride horses on fell land in the Lake District National Park. That is the only way I can respond to him.

My noble friend Lord Richard asked why we should add this proposal to the Bill now. The answer is that the House of Commons needs time to consider this proposition fully and to digest the implications of these amendments. If they are not put in the Bill at this point, we shall lose out overall in terms of the amendments before us.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for his support. I thank also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for making a judgment based on his vast experience of the House of Commons. I am particularly indebted to my noble friend Lord Sewel, who clearly understands precisely what I am trying to do. We have to find a compromise and I am dealing with the Bill as it is. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, took his usual hard line on the issue. I know that he feels strongly that there is an issue of principle involved here, as is indeed the case for the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I thank once again the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for his sensible and realistic advice.

All I can do is echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Whitty. We have to deal with the real world, and there is a real problem there. If noble Lords do not address it tonight by allowing these amendments through so that they can at least tag along in the background while the major argument about licensing
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1373
 
and registration goes on, I believe that we will have failed people in the national parks and perhaps those in the less favoured areas. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 81.


Division No. 2


CONTENTS

Arran, E.
Attlee, E.
Buscombe, B.
Campbell-Savours, L. [Teller]
Chadlington, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Dundee, E.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Glentoran, L.
Greenway, L.
Haworth, L.
Hooper, B.
Hooson, L.
Hurd of Westwell, L.
Hylton, L.
Inglewood, L. [Teller]
Jopling, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Renton, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Roper, L.
Sandberg, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Taverne, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Vinson, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Armstrong of Ilminster, L.
Astor, V.
Bledisloe, V.
Borrie, L.
Bramall, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brookeborough, V.
Brookman, L.
Byford, B. [Teller]
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Carter of Coles, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chorley, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Denham, L. [Teller]
Dixon, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Donoughue, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Fookes, B.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Geddes, L.
Golding, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Greaves, L.
Grocott, L.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Judd, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Laird, L.
Liverpool, E.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Mancroft, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Maxton, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Nickson, L.
Northbrook, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Palmer, L.
Patten, L.
Peel, E.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Plumb, L.
Richard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rogan, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Scott of Foscote, L.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Simon, V.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Tope, L.
Ullswater, V.
Waddington, L.
Walpole, L.
Willoughby de Broke, L.


Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.


 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1374
 

Clause 6 [Penalty]:

Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 48:


"( ) Where a magistrates' court convicts a person of an offence under this Act the clerk of the court (within the meaning of section 141 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)) shall notify the registrar."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.

Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 49:


"DISQUALIFICATION FOR REGISTRATION
(1) A court which convicts a person of an offence under Part 1 of this Act may make an order (a "disqualification order") that he may not—
(a) be registered under Part 1A of this Act, or
(b) hunt in reliance on section (Registered hunting)(2) or (3).
(2) A disqualification order shall specify the duration of the disqualification (which may be for the person's life).
(3) The registrar—
(a) shall not register a person who is subject to a disqualification order,
(b) shall cancel a person's registration if he is registered when a disqualification order takes effect, and
(c) shall cancel a person's registration if he was subject to a disqualification order when the registration took effect.
(4) The subject of a disqualification order may apply for an order terminating it.
(5) An application under subsection (4) for the termination of a disqualification order may be made only if—
(a) a year has elapsed since the date of the order, and
(b) a year has elapsed since the date of the determination of any previous application under subsection (4) in respect of the order.
(6) An application under subsection (4) must be made to—
(a) the magistrates' court which made the disqualification order, or
(b) a magistrates' court for the same petty sessions area.
(7) On hearing an application under subsection (4) a magistrates' court may order the applicant to pay costs.
(8) Where a magistrates' court makes or terminates a disqualification order the clerk of the court (within the meaning of section 141 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)) shall notify the registrar.
(9) In this section a reference to a person's registration includes a reference to his inclusion in a group registration."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1375
 

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Interpretation]:


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page